Conference Realignment

LawTalkin Jacket

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
333
That could be true. The question was how does the current arrangement hurt the ACC? No one has addressed that question so far that I have seen.
it lets ND get the games without being in a conference which keeps ACC so weak, the undefeated winner can't get in the playoff.
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,681
ND has been a net positive for the ACC since the day they made the deal. I don't even like ND, but I understand that much.

ACC got more TV money because ESPN was guaranteed to get multiple ND Games every year.
ND does not take any FB media revenue (they actually have made less revenue overall since the deal than they would have made if they had joined all in).

IMO, having ND as part of the ACC in other sports is actually a big win for the ACC in terms of longevity. ND is in the league it feels has schools that most closely resembles its own in terms of how they view athletics and academics. The last thing ND would want is for the ACC to fall apart as it would force them to look at another conference for all its non-FB sports and it shares basically nothing with the B12 and it does not want to join either thje B1G or SEC (and i'm sure both would make it join all in).

The new playoff format makes it less likely they would ever join a conference for football.
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,681
Been working on an analysis of conference realignment and how it impacts college football performance.
From 2004 (Miami, VT) to 2014 (Rutgers, MD, L'ville) - 15 schools have changed from 1 'power' conference to another.
I looked at their overall and conference records for the time period post the move to the same period of time pre-move.

Of those 15 schools, only 1 - Texas A&M, has won significantly more games since the move 11.3 percentage points overall and 6.2 percentage points in conference games.

8 of the 15 schools have seen their overall and/or conference winning percentages drop by more than 10 percentage points.

The other 6 programs have seen smaller changes (mostly slightly negative)

IMO alot of it simply has to do with how you compare financially in your new conference to your old one. Even with the new TV money, MD and Rutgers have the 2 lowest athletic revenues in the B1G. Neb is 9th out of 14.

If you move to a new conference - in many ways you are handicapped by being farther behind the better programs in revenue than your previous conference. If GT was to move from the ACC to B1G and get a full share (which is not likely given recent conference move outcomes) then GT would go from being around $11M/yr below the avg revenue in their conference to around $27M/yr below the avg revenue in their conference and be roughly $125M below the highest revenue team compared to $55M now.

Note the one school to win significantly more games, Texas A&M, is one of the richer programs in the country - 7th largest revenue. It was uniquely suited to making a move - few other programs really are.

FWIW, here are the changes in winning percentages for the 15 programs.

Team (overall winning percentage - new, old, change), (conference winning percentage - new, old, change)
Rutgers (32.8%, 63.0%, -30.3%), (18.2%, 48.6%, -30.4%)
Miami (59.2%, 83.1%, -23.9%,), (55.3%, 86.7%, -31.5%)
TCU (60.5%, 79.3%, -18.8%), (54.6%, 79.8%, -25.2%)
Neb (50.3%, 68.5%, -18.1%), (45.0%, 62.5%, -17.5%)
WVU (54.7%, 69.5%, -14.8%), (49.5%, 68.7%, -19.1%)
Col (33.8%, 48.4%, -14.7%), (25.0%, 48.1%, -23.1%)
L'ville (57.1%, 67.7%, -10.6%), (53.7%, 61.1%, -7.5%)
Utah (64.2%, 70.9%, -6.7%), (57.5%, 69.4%, -11.9%)
Pitt (55.3%, 58.0%, -2.7%), (55.6%, 59.2%, -3.7%)
Missou (56.7%, 58.7%, -2.0%), (48.0%, 50.5%, -2.6%)
Maryland (44.4%, 46.3%, -1.9%), (32.1%, 37.5%, -5.4%)
BC (52.3%, 52.9%, -0.6%), (44.2%, 49.5%, -5.3%)
VT (63.8%, 63.5%, +0.3%), (64.6%, 68.7%, -4.1%)
Syracuse (41.8%, 38.3%, +3.4%), (31.1%, 28.9%, +2.2%)
Texas A&M (64.7%, 53.4%, +11.3%), (53.6%, 47.4%, +6.2%)

None of this means that if one of the P2 come calling you should automatically turn them down, it does mean you really need to think about what you want your sports programs accomplishing and what your goals are. If your goals are to maximize football wins than it is likely not a good move. The odds are significant you are going to win fewer games in the new conference.
If it is to increase revenue than it is a good move, but you are playing in a new neighborhood where your new neighbors are spending way more than you are compared to your old neighborhood.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,616
Your analysis has proven what up to now Ive considered intuitive. Just because you’re in a new upscale neighborhood doesn’t mean you can roll with the new neighbors. This seems to be the plight of most of the rest of the teams left.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,198
ND has been a net positive for the ACC since the day they made the deal. I don't even like ND, but I understand that much.

ACC got more TV money because ESPN was guaranteed to get multiple ND Games every year.
ND does not take any FB media revenue (they actually have made less revenue overall since the deal than they would have made if they had joined all in).

IMO, having ND as part of the ACC in other sports is actually a big win for the ACC in terms of longevity. ND is in the league it feels has schools that most closely resembles its own in terms of how they view athletics and academics. The last thing ND would want is for the ACC to fall apart as it would force them to look at another conference for all its non-FB sports and it shares basically nothing with the B12 and it does not want to join either thje B1G or SEC (and i'm sure both would make it join all in).

The new playoff format makes it less likely they would ever join a conference for football.
Well said Red as usual. The ND hate by GT fans will not believe this is true regardless of any facts! I never liked ND but I realize they are good for the ACC. ND had zero to do with FSU not getting in the CFP this year!
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,178
Location
Oriental, NC
Been working on an analysis of conference realignment and how it impacts college football performance.
From 2004 (Miami, VT) to 2014 (Rutgers, MD, L'ville) - 15 schools have changed from 1 'power' conference to another.
I looked at their overall and conference records for the time period post the move to the same period of time pre-move.

Of those 15 schools, only 1 - Texas A&M, has won significantly more games since the move 11.3 percentage points overall and 6.2 percentage points in conference games.

8 of the 15 schools have seen their overall and/or conference winning percentages drop by more than 10 percentage points.

The other 6 programs have seen smaller changes (mostly slightly negative)

IMO alot of it simply has to do with how you compare financially in your new conference to your old one. Even with the new TV money, MD and Rutgers have the 2 lowest athletic revenues in the B1G. Neb is 9th out of 14.

If you move to a new conference - in many ways you are handicapped by being farther behind the better programs in revenue than your previous conference. If GT was to move from the ACC to B1G and get a full share (which is not likely given recent conference move outcomes) then GT would go from being around $11M/yr below the avg revenue in their conference to around $27M/yr below the avg revenue in their conference and be roughly $125M below the highest revenue team compared to $55M now.

Note the one school to win significantly more games, Texas A&M, is one of the richer programs in the country - 7th largest revenue. It was uniquely suited to making a move - few other programs really are.

FWIW, here are the changes in winning percentages for the 15 programs.

Team (overall winning percentage - new, old, change), (conference winning percentage - new, old, change)
Rutgers (32.8%, 63.0%, -30.3%), (18.2%, 48.6%, -30.4%)
Miami (59.2%, 83.1%, -23.9%,), (55.3%, 86.7%, -31.5%)
TCU (60.5%, 79.3%, -18.8%), (54.6%, 79.8%, -25.2%)
Neb (50.3%, 68.5%, -18.1%), (45.0%, 62.5%, -17.5%)
WVU (54.7%, 69.5%, -14.8%), (49.5%, 68.7%, -19.1%)
Col (33.8%, 48.4%, -14.7%), (25.0%, 48.1%, -23.1%)
L'ville (57.1%, 67.7%, -10.6%), (53.7%, 61.1%, -7.5%)
Utah (64.2%, 70.9%, -6.7%), (57.5%, 69.4%, -11.9%)
Pitt (55.3%, 58.0%, -2.7%), (55.6%, 59.2%, -3.7%)
Missou (56.7%, 58.7%, -2.0%), (48.0%, 50.5%, -2.6%)
Maryland (44.4%, 46.3%, -1.9%), (32.1%, 37.5%, -5.4%)
BC (52.3%, 52.9%, -0.6%), (44.2%, 49.5%, -5.3%)
VT (63.8%, 63.5%, +0.3%), (64.6%, 68.7%, -4.1%)
Syracuse (41.8%, 38.3%, +3.4%), (31.1%, 28.9%, +2.2%)
Texas A&M (64.7%, 53.4%, +11.3%), (53.6%, 47.4%, +6.2%)

None of this means that if one of the P2 come calling you should automatically turn them down, it does mean you really need to think about what you want your sports programs accomplishing and what your goals are. If your goals are to maximize football wins than it is likely not a good move. The odds are significant you are going to win fewer games in the new conference.
If it is to increase revenue than it is a good move, but you are playing in a new neighborhood where your new neighbors are spending way more than you are compared to your old neighborhood.
I think Texas, Oklahoma, UCLA, USC, Washington, and Oregon are very different from most of the realignment teams in your list. With the possible exception of UCLA those are all blue blood programs. With deep pockets.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,908
Location
North Shore, Chicago
That could be true. The question was how does the current arrangement hurt the ACC? No one has addressed that question so far that I have seen.
Just another high-level P5 game without the benefits of leveraging ND in the TV contract. The arrangement is more beneficial to ND and less to the ACC. I think people bristle at that, especially due to the ND hubris. Personally, I don't care. I'd be happy to play them every year.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,908
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Been working on an analysis of conference realignment and how it impacts college football performance.
From 2004 (Miami, VT) to 2014 (Rutgers, MD, L'ville) - 15 schools have changed from 1 'power' conference to another.
I looked at their overall and conference records for the time period post the move to the same period of time pre-move.

Of those 15 schools, only 1 - Texas A&M, has won significantly more games since the move 11.3 percentage points overall and 6.2 percentage points in conference games.

8 of the 15 schools have seen their overall and/or conference winning percentages drop by more than 10 percentage points.

The other 6 programs have seen smaller changes (mostly slightly negative)

IMO alot of it simply has to do with how you compare financially in your new conference to your old one. Even with the new TV money, MD and Rutgers have the 2 lowest athletic revenues in the B1G. Neb is 9th out of 14.

If you move to a new conference - in many ways you are handicapped by being farther behind the better programs in revenue than your previous conference. If GT was to move from the ACC to B1G and get a full share (which is not likely given recent conference move outcomes) then GT would go from being around $11M/yr below the avg revenue in their conference to around $27M/yr below the avg revenue in their conference and be roughly $125M below the highest revenue team compared to $55M now.

Note the one school to win significantly more games, Texas A&M, is one of the richer programs in the country - 7th largest revenue. It was uniquely suited to making a move - few other programs really are.

FWIW, here are the changes in winning percentages for the 15 programs.

Team (overall winning percentage - new, old, change), (conference winning percentage - new, old, change)
Rutgers (32.8%, 63.0%, -30.3%), (18.2%, 48.6%, -30.4%)
Miami (59.2%, 83.1%, -23.9%,), (55.3%, 86.7%, -31.5%)
TCU (60.5%, 79.3%, -18.8%), (54.6%, 79.8%, -25.2%)
Neb (50.3%, 68.5%, -18.1%), (45.0%, 62.5%, -17.5%)
WVU (54.7%, 69.5%, -14.8%), (49.5%, 68.7%, -19.1%)
Col (33.8%, 48.4%, -14.7%), (25.0%, 48.1%, -23.1%)
L'ville (57.1%, 67.7%, -10.6%), (53.7%, 61.1%, -7.5%)
Utah (64.2%, 70.9%, -6.7%), (57.5%, 69.4%, -11.9%)
Pitt (55.3%, 58.0%, -2.7%), (55.6%, 59.2%, -3.7%)
Missou (56.7%, 58.7%, -2.0%), (48.0%, 50.5%, -2.6%)
Maryland (44.4%, 46.3%, -1.9%), (32.1%, 37.5%, -5.4%)
BC (52.3%, 52.9%, -0.6%), (44.2%, 49.5%, -5.3%)
VT (63.8%, 63.5%, +0.3%), (64.6%, 68.7%, -4.1%)
Syracuse (41.8%, 38.3%, +3.4%), (31.1%, 28.9%, +2.2%)
Texas A&M (64.7%, 53.4%, +11.3%), (53.6%, 47.4%, +6.2%)

None of this means that if one of the P2 come calling you should automatically turn them down, it does mean you really need to think about what you want your sports programs accomplishing and what your goals are. If your goals are to maximize football wins than it is likely not a good move. The odds are significant you are going to win fewer games in the new conference.
If it is to increase revenue than it is a good move, but you are playing in a new neighborhood where your new neighbors are spending way more than you are compared to your old neighborhood.
I believe if GT went to the B1G it would be at approximately the same time the B1G contract expires (unless the ACC implodes, which I do not believe it will). At that point, I believe all teams that move will get a full share. Oregon and Washington aren't getting a full share because they came in after the contract was signed, while USC and UCLA came in before the contract was signed.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,198
Just another high-level P5 game without the benefits of leveraging ND in the TV contract. The arrangement is more beneficial to ND and less to the ACC. I think people bristle at that, especially due to the ND hubris. Personally, I don't care. I'd be happy to play them every year.
The ACC does leverage ND in it's TV contract. The ACC gets 2 or 3 home games with ND every year. That is factored into the ACC TV Contract. ND getting 2-3 ACC teams at home is factored into ND's NBC contract.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,198
And if they were a full member?
Again the question is how has ND as a partial member hurt the ACC. As I said several times full membership would be better. That is not an option.

I have and Red added good info how ND as a partial member has helped the ACC.

Still no answer how partial membership has hurt the ACC.
 

Bogey

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,167
No question that ND's association with the ACC has been good for the ACC as well as the school. And when the big split actually does occur, It will be to the ACC's advantage to have them tied to the conference in some manner, even without full football membership. And particularly for GT because of our shared history and values.
 

LT 1967

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
187
I believe the major advantage of having ND as a partial football member is the increased TV views for those 5 games.

The disadvantage is that the ACC teams (Including GT) have not been very competitive with ND. If AI is correct, ND is 40-10 against ACC teams since making the ACC Deal in 2013. On average, this basically means one more loss for 4 of the 5 ACC teams that they play each year and another opportunity for the ESPN talking heads to bash the ACC as a weak football league.

When the ACC added schools like Florida State and Miami, the hope AT THAT TIME was that the rest of the league would rise closer to their level. That didn't happen, plus FSU and Miami dropped down from their lofty status until FSU came back this year.
 
Last edited:

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,908
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Again the question is how has ND as a partial member hurt the ACC. As I said several times full membership would be better. That is not an option.

I have and Red added good info how ND as a partial member has helped the ACC.

Still no answer how partial membership has hurt the ACC.
Firstly, I'm not arguing with you. I never posited that ND not being in the ACC for football was bad for the ACC. That being said, I guess I'll play.

If you're contributing to an overall positive effect at work but aren't giving 100%, are you hurting your company by not allowing them to realize the full extent of what could be accomplished if you were 100% bought in? Of course. Same here. ND being a partial member doesn't have a net negative effect on the ACC, but it could contribute to a much greater net positive, but don't. Also, the perception by outside groups that ND is playing the ACC may create a negative perception of the ACC, which could damage the brand.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,198
Firstly, I'm not arguing with you. I never posited that ND not being in the ACC for football was bad for the ACC. That being said, I guess I'll play.

If you're contributing to an overall positive effect at work but aren't giving 100%, are you hurting your company by not allowing them to realize the full extent of what could be accomplished if you were 100% bought in? Of course. Same here. ND being a partial member doesn't have a net negative effect on the ACC, but it could contribute to a much greater net positive, but don't. Also, the perception by outside groups that ND is playing the ACC may create a negative perception of the ACC, which could damage the brand.
That was like eating a pretzel :p :ROFLMAO: Very twisted to get back to they have been good for the ACC.

This is a message board so all opinions are good to go.
 

Richard7125

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
375
Firstly, I'm not arguing with you. I never posited that ND not being in the ACC for football was bad for the ACC. That being said, I guess I'll play.

If you're contributing to an overall positive effect at work but aren't giving 100%, are you hurting your company by not allowing them to realize the full extent of what could be accomplished if you were 100% bought in? Of course. Same here. ND being a partial member doesn't have a net negative effect on the ACC, but it could contribute to a much greater net positive, but don't. Also, the perception by outside groups that ND is playing the ACC may create a negative perception of the ACC, which could damage the brand.
Well, if your company is paying you 70% for your effort and your 70% effort is better than most people's 100% effort, i would argue your company is getting a great deal.
 

Bogey

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,167
Well, if your company is paying you 70% for your effort and your 70% effort is better than most people's 100% effort, i would argue your company is getting a great deal.
When I was working, I had my good days and my bad days. I did slack off on my bad days and was not worth my salary. i would usually leave my office on those days early before I could do much damage. But on my good days, I was really good and worth 4 or 5 times my salary. :ROFLMAO:
 

cpf2001

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
762
Well, if your company is paying you 70% for your effort and your 70% effort is better than most people's 100% effort, i would argue your company is getting a great deal.
It can be bad for morale if 95% of the company sees themselves working harder for the same reward. So you can be a net win but your peers be upset … whoa, it really is a perfect analogy ;)
 

Randy Carson

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,197
Location
Apex, NC
Been working on an analysis of conference realignment and how it impacts college football performance.
From 2004 (Miami, VT) to 2014 (Rutgers, MD, L'ville) - 15 schools have changed from 1 'power' conference to another.
I looked at their overall and conference records for the time period post the move to the same period of time pre-move.

Of those 15 schools, only 1 - Texas A&M, has won significantly more games since the move 11.3 percentage points overall and 6.2 percentage points in conference games.

8 of the 15 schools have seen their overall and/or conference winning percentages drop by more than 10 percentage points.

The other 6 programs have seen smaller changes (mostly slightly negative)

IMO alot of it simply has to do with how you compare financially in your new conference to your old one. Even with the new TV money, MD and Rutgers have the 2 lowest athletic revenues in the B1G. Neb is 9th out of 14.

If you move to a new conference - in many ways you are handicapped by being farther behind the better programs in revenue than your previous conference. If GT was to move from the ACC to B1G and get a full share (which is not likely given recent conference move outcomes) then GT would go from being around $11M/yr below the avg revenue in their conference to around $27M/yr below the avg revenue in their conference and be roughly $125M below the highest revenue team compared to $55M now.

Note the one school to win significantly more games, Texas A&M, is one of the richer programs in the country - 7th largest revenue. It was uniquely suited to making a move - few other programs really are.

FWIW, here are the changes in winning percentages for the 15 programs.

Team (overall winning percentage - new, old, change), (conference winning percentage - new, old, change)
Rutgers (32.8%, 63.0%, -30.3%), (18.2%, 48.6%, -30.4%)
Miami (59.2%, 83.1%, -23.9%,), (55.3%, 86.7%, -31.5%)
TCU (60.5%, 79.3%, -18.8%), (54.6%, 79.8%, -25.2%)
Neb (50.3%, 68.5%, -18.1%), (45.0%, 62.5%, -17.5%)
WVU (54.7%, 69.5%, -14.8%), (49.5%, 68.7%, -19.1%)
Col (33.8%, 48.4%, -14.7%), (25.0%, 48.1%, -23.1%)
L'ville (57.1%, 67.7%, -10.6%), (53.7%, 61.1%, -7.5%)
Utah (64.2%, 70.9%, -6.7%), (57.5%, 69.4%, -11.9%)
Pitt (55.3%, 58.0%, -2.7%), (55.6%, 59.2%, -3.7%)
Missou (56.7%, 58.7%, -2.0%), (48.0%, 50.5%, -2.6%)
Maryland (44.4%, 46.3%, -1.9%), (32.1%, 37.5%, -5.4%)
BC (52.3%, 52.9%, -0.6%), (44.2%, 49.5%, -5.3%)
VT (63.8%, 63.5%, +0.3%), (64.6%, 68.7%, -4.1%)
Syracuse (41.8%, 38.3%, +3.4%), (31.1%, 28.9%, +2.2%)
Texas A&M (64.7%, 53.4%, +11.3%), (53.6%, 47.4%, +6.2%)

None of this means that if one of the P2 come calling you should automatically turn them down, it does mean you really need to think about what you want your sports programs accomplishing and what your goals are. If your goals are to maximize football wins than it is likely not a good move. The odds are significant you are going to win fewer games in the new conference.
If it is to increase revenue than it is a good move, but you are playing in a new neighborhood where your new neighbors are spending way more than you are compared to your old neighborhood.
Great. Juuuuust great.

Every time we're have a really good discussion, someone comes along and ruins it with data.

;)
 
Top